On 29 Dec 2013, at 16:12, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I think that you are reading too much into what I wrote.
Interleaving.
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:07, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then consider
interactions between multiple separate QM systems, there will be a
low level where the many are only one and thus the superposition of
state remains. It can be shown that at the separation level there
will also be one but it will not be in superposition, it will be
what decoherence describes. But this high level version is subject
to GR "adjustments" and so will not be nice and well behaved.
OK, but I do not assume any physical "theory" in the derivation that
physics is a branch of arithmetic.
Can we safely assume anything about what one observer may have as
"perceptions"? Could the "perceptions", however they may be define,
include some means to distinguish one entity from another within
those "perceptions". A crude "physics" theory might be equivalent to
some method for an observer to make predictions of the content of
its "perceptions", assuming some form of "memory" is possible...
What you say can make sense in the study of the question that QM/GR,
or whatever empirically inferred, confirms or refutes comp.
I do not think that comp can be empirically "refuted" in the
experimental sense of "hard science"! It addresses questions that
are deeper than physics.
Yes, it addresses theological questions, like the technological
reincarnation, and the arithmetical "reincarnation". It is much larger
than physics. But the point is that physics is entirely part of that
theology, making theology indirectly testable, and the physics, is
entirely testable. That's the whole point: comp makes theology into an
"hard science", thanks to its relation with computer science and
mathematical logic.
Of course the physics intuitively extracted in UDA is not tractable,
but then the translation of UDA in arithmetic, using the classical
theory of knowledge (that we recover with the idea of Theaetetus in
arithmetic) gives the propositional physics, which up to now is shown
to be a quantum logic. We can test it to see if it gives a quantum
computer in the physical neighborhood of the machine. The math are
just hard, but the question is precisely formulated in purely
arithmetical terms.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
